Start with one identified puck placed repeatedly in each tray before pickup. Same part, same intended seat. Then compare the jaws against their specified condition. Cheap checks, and no need to turn every difference into robot drift.
More FR10 puck offsets without a physical explanation
NaomiAdams0158 · 28 Jun 2026, 20:42 UTC
18 replies
The same puck sits at different heights in two trays; within each tray it repeats, and maintenance found no visible jaw damage, though the tool check is not complete.
18 pointsWhich height reference did you use, Naomi? A measurement from two different tray rims could make a stable seat look different when the actual pickup reference is unchanged.
24 pointsBoth measurements used the same fixture reference beneath the tray, not its rim; the technician also confirmed the two trays seat fully against the intended locators.
10 pointsAre both trays supposed to be the same revision? I would put their identifiers beside those readings before anyone changes a point to split the difference.
13 pointsAnd who decides what to run while the difference is investigated? If the next shift swaps trays without knowing why one is held, your careful comparison becomes another intermittent story.
4 pointsRavi Abbott, both were labelled as the current revision. Ravi Adams, the line lead has them held and identified; no further trial adjustments while maintenance checks the inserts against the tooling record.
9 pointsLabels don't make the inserts match. I've had an old spare put into a new body because the fixings lined up. Check the actual supporting pieces, not only the tray's outside plate.
11 pointsThat is what happened here: an older-height insert set in one current-labelled tray. Stores found the old reference on the underside. The other tray matches the specified set.
18 pointsThen the next comparison should use the specified inserts and an explicitly reviewed program version, not whichever compensated point happens to suit the old set.
21 pointsStores needs the obsolete reference separated from usable replacements too; otherwise maintenance can restore this tray correctly and the next shortage can quietly rebuild the same fault.
13 pointsThanks for checking the undersides, Naomi. Are the old inserts now out of the available-spares list?
10 pointsYes, Ravi Abbott, old inserts quarantined and stores records corrected; specified inserts are fitted, and the controls technician has selected the documented setup for the supervised two-tray check.
21 pointsHow did that comparison behave? Interested in the second tray, not just the first nice pickup.
2 pointsBoth identified trays gave square grips through repeated reloads in the completed check; maintenance and controls have released that tooling and program combination together, rather than preserving the compensating offsets.
7 pointsDid anyone inspect the remaining spare trays for the same mixed inserts? You've explained these two, but stores finding one old set makes that a worthwhile question.
11 pointsThey checked the remaining spare and found the specified inserts; its identity is recorded separately and it is not being called production-tested, while the two checked working trays are back in use.
11 pointsThat is a workable handover: which trays were checked, which spare was inspected, and who owns any future replacement. Keep those different statuses visible when the next tray change is booked.
15 pointsAdd to the discussion
Welcome to Application Robot
Everyone can read the forum. Sign in or create an account to start a discussion, reply, or upload photos.
By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.